Did we shoot down Kim Jong Il's missile, when will we read about it in the NYT?

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by sammyg2
BTW, our cruise missles are all subsonic, right?
Ummmmmmm wouldn't it be cool if we had supersonic stealth cruise missles with almost zero detectable cross section and minimal infra-red signature. Don't hear it, don't see it, can't shoot it down, boom. Supposed to be for nukes but can be used with conventional war heads.

Imagine a supersonic torpedo..............
Visualize a torpedo that goes underwater but doesn't touch the water. Imagine the polaris initial launch sequence but on a horizontal plane and an effective range of over 100 miles.
These are not secrets that the other guys don't know about, but I will get a kick out of it when they anounce this "brand new" technology in 15 years. By that time they will have something better and will be looking for a way to at least get some use from this older stuff.

If your enemies think your technology is 15 years behind, he only has to stay 10 years behind to beat you.
That means you are net 10 year ahead at all times.

We already have the cruise missle and torpedo now... Aviation Week has discussed both but not in detail.

I just cannot wait until they announce the successor to the SR-71. Its been flying for several years from what we hear, based somewhere out here in the West. Have heard where but my memory gets feeble at times like this and cannot remember which state its based in... OPSEC you know...

[stevepaa]

AFAIK, One needs to split the question between cruise missiles aimed at ships which we can defend against and missiles going to targets without immediate defensive weapons, which we have no proven defense for. ICBMs are most effectively destroyed during boost phase and those systems designed to kill in boost phase are not on line yet.
Once the warhead(s)/decoy(s) are released we have no defense yet.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by stevepaa
AFAIK, One needs to split the question between cruise missiles aimed at ships which we can defend against and missiles going to targets without immediate defensive weapons, which we have no proven defense for. ICBMs are most effectively destroyed during boost phase and those systems designed to kill in boost phase are not on line yet.
Once the warhead(s)/decoy(s) are released we have no defense yet.

And which part of the DOD do you work for? You must be one of the few people in the world who knows every classified program that the US has to be able to say that we without a doubt we have no defense against something.

To tell the truth, I cannot disagree with you that we may not have anything like this, but to make a statement that "we have no defense against something" is a bit more all encompassing than I would ever make, but then I prefer to be correct in my statements.

[stevepaa]

AFAIK means As Far As I Know.
While it is very possible to keep aircraft development secret, it is nigh impossible to develop a real missile/reentry body defense in secret. You need assets to test against, places to launch from and a significant enterprise to make it all happen.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/thaad/ is not ready and is the forefront of the technology.

[fintstone]

Steve is right. ICBMs and cruise missiles are diffrerent animals with different methods of defense. ICBMs a destroyed in boost and regular missiles at terminal phase (Steve is right. ICBMs and cruise missiles are diffrerent animals with different methods of defense. All are best destroyed prior to launch, but if that is not possible...current wisdom is that ICBMs are best destroyed in boost (ABL/etc) and regular missiles/cruise missiles at terminal phase (Phalanx/PATRIOT/etc). Since these are current public programs, you can assume much more advanced technologies are in development. Does anyone remember the many "star wars" programs that were started by the Gipper?

[M.D. Holloway]

Fint - supposedly most of those - if not all - never made it past concept when bubba clinton got into oriface. Not sure I believe they ever died. I do remember a clip of a segment on a silly UFO show on Discovery where a craft was fired upon by a Laser sat in orbit. Most likly a hoax but having done work many many years ago on a few DARPA projects while with Grace Chemical and Rohm & Haas, there are many things we worked on that the public didn't even hear about for at least 10 years and these were not even the real hush hush stuff. I am sure that there is technology that exceeds the publics understanding.

[snowman]

I know for a fact that the laser weapons programs are over 35 years old. So what you know is somewhat stale, very, very stale.

[stevepaa]

Actually, the whole star wars stuff was premature and fanciful. At the time, teams at the Labs were pitted against each other in computer simulations with the blue defense trying to use the star wars stuff. The red attack team could easily change a parameter that the blue defense could not keep up with.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Seahawk

We can shot down their missiles. For goodness sake, do some homework.

LOL! I was too lazy to research, plus in a hurry to see "Superman."

[fintstone]

What is useless against hundreds...or even thousands of ICBMs launched by a near peer from a wide spread area could be pretty effective against a nation with only a dozen or so...launched from a relatively small area. Especially after almost 20 more years of development.

[IROC]

Originally posted by snowman
I know for a fact that the laser weapons programs are over 35 years old. So what you know is somewhat stale, very, very stale.

Well, yes and no. Some of the early applications are probably 35 years old, but the current weapons-based lasers are all using current technology. The program I am working on is essentially brand new. It's laser is even more advanced than ABL's, but in a slightly different way. Plus, these new lasers are higher output COIL lasers than what has ever been tried before...

Mike

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by dd74
LOL! I was too lazy to research, plus in a hurry to see "Superman."

Lazy is my call sign!

For more info, do a search on Aegis Cruisers and Theater Ballistic Missile Defence. Also, Aegis and the term 'linebacker'.

Hope, 'Superman' was worth it...my kids want to go.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by fintstone
Especially after almost 20 more years of development.

I am skeptical that after the simulation reports that much was done on these devices. Following your logic, it woiuld have taken a very far reaching mind with substantail political power to pursuade DOD to spend money in case we could use them on a limited basis against a small country of limited assets. I don't think with all the other priorities that any one of those far fetched weapon ideas would have gotten very far. But that's just my opinion.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by rcecale
Click here.

Randy

We used to call it, "R2D2 with a H@rd on"!

[stevepaa]

Yeah, I like that, sort of like Puff with a brain.

[techweenie]

Not sure what exciting PR footage of CWIS has to do with ICBMs.

The Aegis-based applications shown are defensive weapons against subsonic missiles.

ICBMs are not subsonic, and are not targeted on cruisers.

[Nathans_Dad]

Heck according to Tech we can't even track a missile that was launched from North Korea and hit Alaska, much less shoot one down...

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by techweenie
Not sure what exciting PR footage of CWIS has to do with ICBMs.

The Aegis-based applications shown are defensive weapons against subsonic missiles.

ICBMs are not subsonic, and are not targeted on cruisers.

You need to look some more...they are moving some cruisers into the Sea of Japan as we type, for TBMD. The cruisers provide a shield, not a target.

Tech, I have witnessed skin to skin hits on supersonic targets from Aegis class cruisers. I have flown off the f'ing things on two six month deployments.

[Tobra]

Originally posted by stevepaa
I am skeptical that after the simulation reports that much was done on these devices. Following your logic, it woiuld have taken a very far reaching mind with substantail political power to pursuade DOD to spend money in case we could use them on a limited basis against a small country with limited assets. I don't think with all the other priorities that any one of those far fetched weapon ideas would have gotten very far. But that's just my opinion.

I like reading your posts Steven, they always have a lot of thought behind them, why exactly would we be limited in the ways you describe, aside from the small number of people shooting off ICBM's?

So I guess the answer to the question is, "Yes we have the capability to shoot down some missles, but the media has not reported the capability to shoot down the long dong eu or whatever the multistage missile is called"(I do like the name, sounds like a sex toy from Thailand or something.)

I have no doubt whatsoever that our government has capabilities beyond what you read about. 10 million conspiracy theorists could not be wrong(well maybe, but I like the 10 million to one odds)

[stevepaa]

Tobra, as far as I know, we do not have a working defense for real ballistic threats. The competition for money is intense and back then the likelihood of needing a defense against a NK ICBM would have been dismissed out of hand.

Does anyone know if the Taepodong had destruct capabilities, either command or self destruct? Or could this have been a major engineering mistake.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/05/AR2006070501551.html

If it does not have self or command destruct, I think we are very prudent putting assets near by to attempt to destroy an errant missle.

Did anyone hear of a target zone and any NK assets in the area to monitor the test?